I work with senior leaders when change stops being theoretical and starts carrying real weight. 

I help organizations hold clarity through complexity—when strategy is sound, but execution is straining trust, energy, or alignment, when decisions carry real consequences. When leadership feels heavier than usual. 

My work sits at the intersection of people, structure, and leadership judgment. I partner with CEOs, CHROs, and senior teams to stabilize organizations during moments of transition—designing operating models, leadership alignment, and decision clarity that actually hold under pressure. 

Over the course of my career, I’ve led and advised executive teams across growth-stage and global organizations, supporting transformation efforts that required more than frameworks or playbooks. The work demanded discernment, steadiness, and the ability to see what was happening beneath the surface—before it showed up in performance or culture. 

Through Leadership Rewired, I work as an advisor, consultant, or interim partner, depending on what the situation calls for. The form flexes. The work doesn’t. 

My focus is consistent: 

→ Clarity over complexity. 
→ Systems over silos. 
→ Leadership that can carry responsibility without hardening or disappearing. 

Specialties: 

Organizational Design | Leadership Alignment | Change Navigation | Executive Advisory | People Strategy Under Pressure | Culture & Accountability

Allison Allen

Starting a three-month client engagement this week. 
→ New industry. 
→ Organization transformation. 
→ Opportunity to implement practices I’ve been refining for years.

That’s all exciting.

👉🏾 But here’s what I didn’t expect to feel this energized about: I get to wake up, get dressed, and drive to an office 20 minutes from my home.

For the last two years, all of my client work has been remote, day trips, or strategic offsites. And that’s worked. 

It’s been effective. 
I’ve built Leadership Rewired entirely that way.

But I’ve missed something.

Not the commute. 
Not the office itself.

👉🏾 I’ve missed working in person with a team focused on a common goal.

There’s something about being in the room…
→ seeing the moment someone gets it, 
→ catching the hesitation before it becomes resistance, 
→ reading the energy shift when the real conversation finally starts,
that you can’t fully replicate on a screen.

I’m not making a case for “everyone should be back in the office.” 
That’s not the point.

People should work in the way that’s most effective for them and their organizations. 
→ Remote works. 
→ Hybrid works. 
→ In-person works. 

It depends on the work, the people, and what you’re trying to build.

But for me? 

For this kind of work organizational transformation, shifting how teams make decisions, building new practices into the operating rhythm, I’ve genuinely missed the in-person collaboration.

So this week, I’m driving in. 
Getting in the room. 
Doing the work the way I’ve been wanting to for a while.

I’ll keep you posted on how it goes.
But right now? 

I’m looking forward to Monday in a way I haven’t felt in a while.

Allison Allen, ACC

Executive Advisor & Change Partner to CXOs Navigating Change | Org Design, People Strategy & Leadership Judgment | Founder, Leadership Rewired

No alternative text description for this image

Yesterday, I was put on the spot to introduce myself during my client's townhall.

Normally, I'm good in those moments. 
But my camera wasn't working, 
I'm still getting used to working fully on Teams and being on a PC, 
and I fumbled it.

I said: "My name is Allison Allen and I am working with TA and I am so glad to be here."

Anyone who knows me knows I can do a lot better than that.
Towards the end of the discussion, I dropped a note in the chat:

Hi Everyone, sorry for the wobbly intro... I would like to try again. I am a:

→ Mother of 2 amazing humans who like to hang out with me
→ Partner to an Australian who does not say "good day" or eat fish
→ Content creator who talks about leadership
→ Believer that people are the center of business strategy (and impact)
→ Executive Advisor to CXOs

I got lots of heart emojis and likes. 
It felt good to be a part of it.

Later, a leader came up to me and said: 
"I really liked your intro in the chat. 

A lot of times we don't acknowledge how important family is to us at work."

I said: "It's everything to me. 
I've only come to this later in my career. 
I've always thought it was, but I wasn't living it. 
Now, I encourage anyone who will listen."

For a long time, I said family mattered,
but I was operating like work mattered more.

I took the calls that interrupted dinner. 
Scheduled the early meetings. 
Said yes to the travel. 
Always telling myself it was temporary.
But things never stabilize. Not really.

My values didn't shift. 
My choices did.

I started saying no to things that didn't honor what I said mattered. 
I started building work around life, not life around work. 
And I started leading with it, not hiding it, not apologizing for it.

That chat intro? That's who I am. 
Mother first. Partner. Creator. Advisor.

In that order.
Nothing is more continuous than time.

I've changed companies, most times at my choice, sometimes at theirs. 

Through all the change, I still had people at home who loved me 
and wanted to be around me.

That's what matters. 
And that's what I tell anyone who will listen.

You answered the question in the all-hands. 
You covered it in the leadership team meeting. 
You put it in the deck.

And this week, they're asking again.

"What's the priority?" 
"Are we still doing this?" 
"Did that decision change?"

Your first instinct: they're not listening. 
Or you're not communicating clearly enough.

👉🏾 But here's what's actually happening:
If your team keeps asking for clarity you've already given, the issue isn't communication, it's trust in steadiness. 
Repetition is often a symptom of leaked uncertainty.

They're not asking because they forgot. 
They're asking because they've learned that what you said last week might not hold this week.

Research shows that frequent shifts in leaders' priorities are strongly associated with burnout and disengagement. 

When leaders change direction without clear rationale, 
💥 teams protect themselves, 
💥 they do the minimum, 
💥 wait out the next shift, 
💥 discount current directives as temporary.

Studies analyzing over 80,000 360-degree reviews found that leaders who act inconsistently erode trust roughly three times faster than those who behave predictably.

So when your team keeps asking the same question, 
→ They're not being dense. 
→ They're being rational. 
→ They're checking whether this version of the answer is the one that will actually hold.

 🚩Here's where uncertainty leaks:
→ Tone and body language. You say "we're committed," but your tone is tight, your body language closed. They feel the hedge.
→ Decision reversals without narrative. You change course without explaining what changed or what you learned. It registers as unreliability.
→ Hedging language. "Maybe," "sort of," "we'll see." Softening feels collaborative but overuse reduces perceived authority.
→ Say/reward gap. You say innovation matters but penalize failed experiments. They watch what you reinforce, not what you announce.

People track coherence across your words, tone, and actions at a fine-grained level. When those don't align, they adjust. 

Not because they're bad listeners. Because you've trained them that clarity isn't stable.

✅ Here's the shift: 
1️⃣ When you give clarity, ask yourself, "Do I actually believe this will hold?" If not, don't give false certainty. Say: "Here's where we are. Here's what's still forming."
2️⃣ When you change course, name it explicitly: "Last week I said X. Here's what changed. Now we're doing Y."
3️⃣ Check your tone. If your words say "we're locked in" but your body says "I'm not sure," they'll trust the body.

👉🏾 Steadiness isn't rigidity. It's coherence, your words, tone, and decisions pointing in the same direction.

If your team keeps asking for clarity you've already given, look for where your uncertainty is leaking.

Because repetition isn't about them not hearing you. It's about them not trusting what they heard will still be true next week.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

Credibility Isn’t Built by Explaining. 
It’s Built by Holding the Line.

She set a clear priority: product development first.
 The board pushed. 
The CFO pushed. 
Two executives lobbied privately.

She didn’t argue. She didn’t elaborate. She didn’t adjust to relieve the pressure.
She just held the line, calmly, every time.

👉🏾 Leadership credibility isn’t built by saying more. It’s built by holding the same position when the pressure to move it keeps coming.

Research on leadership under stress shows followers track behavioral consistency more than explanations. 

When leaders become inconsistent under pressure, teams experience higher insecurity and strain. 

Calm, values-aligned behavior builds a trust reservoir teams draw on when conditions worsen.

Most leaders do the opposite. 
When pressure mounts, they explain more. 
→ Hedge more. 
→ Revisit the justification. 
→ Adjust slightly, not because new information arrived, but because the pressure is uncomfortable.
❌ And every time they do, credibility erodes.

High-trust leaders practice intelligent clarity: → What we’re doing. → Why. → What changes. → What doesn’t.
✅ Then they stop talking.

That CEO didn’t gain credibility because she was right. She gained it because she was steady.

👉🏾 Leadership credibility isn’t built the first time you state a position.
 👉🏾 It’s built the tenth time you hold it, calmly, when the pressure hasn’t let up.

What line are you holding right now?
 And are you holding it or explaining it away?

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

Sunday night. 
You're already thinking about Monday,
what you'll need to manage, 
who you'll need to stabilize, 
what you'll need to carry so the team can function.

Here's a different move:

Before Monday, decide what you will stop compensating for this week.
Not what you'll take on. 
What you'll refuse to absorb.

Stability isn't doing more. 
It's refusing to absorb what isn't yours.

Most senior leaders spend their weeks compensating. 
You fill gaps your team should be filling. 
You absorb anxiety from the board. 
You take on responsibility that belongs to others because it's faster, easier, or because no one else will.
And you tell yourself it's leadership.

👉🏾 Leaders who set boundaries protect their own capacity and force the system to mature. 
👉🏾 Leaders who absorb everything burn out themselves, enable under-functioning in others, and quietly cap team development.

Over-functioning is taking on more responsibility than your role requires, 
often to "rescue" others. 

👉🏾 When one person consistently fixes, reminds, and rescues, others do less, depend more, and invest less in their own growth.

Your compensation sustains performance short-term. 
But it blocks capability building.

💥 Studies show that when leaders stop carrying all the load and instead set clear standards, avoidance of accountability decreases and peer-to-peer accountability increases.

So this week, choose one thing you will stop compensating for.
🛑 Stop absorbing the board's anxiety about timelines you can't control. 
🛑 Stop filling every gap in your team's execution. 
🛑 Stop taking on responsibility for outcomes your peers should be managing. 
🛑 Stop saying yes to everything just to keep the system calm.

🛑 When leaders pull back from automatic fixing, teams experience discomfort, but they gradually increase ownership, skill, and reliability.

The discomfort is the point. 
It's the signal that accountability is shifting back to where it belongs.

Organizations that normalize healthy boundaries see higher job satisfaction, stronger commitment, and better business results than cultures that rely on heroic, always-on leaders.

Stability isn't how much you can hold. 
It's what you refuse to take on in the first place.

When you stop compensating, the system doesn't collapse. 
✅ It adjusts. 
✅ People step up. 
✅ Accountability redistributes.

Before Monday, ask yourself: 
What am I compensating for that isn't mine to carry?

Then decide: this week, I'm not taking that on.

Not because you don't care. 
Because your compensation is capping the system's ability to grow.

If this hits, DM me "compensation." 

I'm working with a small group of leaders on exactly this, learning to stop absorbing what isn't theirs without the system collapsing.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

Nine months into the transformation.
The strategy is clear.
The direction hasn’t changed.

But you’ve started adjusting the signals.
Not big pivots.
Small moves.

“We’re still committed, but let me clarify.”
“The timeline is more flexible than we originally said.”
“We’re prioritizing X over Y for the next quarter.”

Each adjustment makes sense in the moment.
You’re responding to feedback. 
You’re being adaptive.

But here’s what’s actually happening:
👉🏾 In prolonged change, inconsistency rarely comes from strategy shifts.
It comes from leaders adjusting signals to relieve pressure, not because the direction changed.
→ The board is asking where the results are.
→ The team is tired.
→ The market isn’t responding fast enough.

And holding the same position, month after month, under sustained pressure, starts to feel intolerable.
So you adjust.

Not because new information arrived.
Because staying steady feels too heavy.

👉🏾 Under pressure, leaders default to emotion-driven adjustments unless they deliberately slow down and anchor decisions in evidence. 

The distinction matters:

🚩 Pressure-driven adjustment
→ Triggered by anxiety, stakeholder noise, or optics
→ Little reference to new data
→ Justification sounds like: “It feels like we have to move”

✅ Information-driven adjustment
→ Triggered by material data or real environmental change
→ Explicit about what changed and why
→ Framed as: “Given X, we’re updating Y while the goal remains Z”

Most leaders believe they’re doing the second.
They’re usually doing the first.
And the organization feels it.

👉🏾 Change-communication research shows that inconsistent signals erode trust, increase resistance, and amplify anxiety. When commitments shift without naming the learning, people experience it as misalignment or worse, hidden agendas.

🚩 Over time, these small, unnamed adjustments create narrative debt. Each gap between what was said and what’s done compounds.
→ You say “focus,” but keep adding initiatives.
→ You say “committed,” but keep moving timelines.

Eventually, people stop believing the direction will hold.

💥 When you adjust your message, priorities, or timing, ask yourself:
“Am I responding to new information or relieving the pressure of staying steady?”

If it’s the latter, you’re not adapting. You’re drifting.

👉🏾 And each time you adjust to relieve pressure, you teach the system something dangerous:
→ The direction isn’t stable.
→ The commitment isn’t real.
→ The safest move is to wait it out.

In prolonged change, leadership isn’t about making people comfortable. 
It’s about holding the line and naming clearly when and why you change it.

Because inconsistency doesn’t come from complexity.
It comes from not being able to tolerate the pressure of staying steady.

What are you adjusting right now to relieve pressure instead of responding to new information?

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

First quiet morning all week. 
And the first thing you notice: how much you've been holding alone.

Most leaders don't burn out from the work. 
They burn out from being the only place uncertainty is allowed to land.

You absorb your team's doubt so they can stay focused. 
You hold steady while they process resistance and fear. 
You project calm, you don't feel. 
You answer questions you're still asking yourself.

And your own uncertainty? 
No sanctioned place to land.

The research confirms what you already know: 
It’s not the hours that drain leaders: 
It's not task volume that drains leaders, it's emotional labor. 

The invisible work of regulating your emotions, absorbing others' anxiety, and suppressing your own stress to keep the system stable.

56% of executives report burnout. 
73% say they're overworked without rest. 

But the real drain isn't the hours, it's being the emotional buffer with no outlet.
You can't share uncertainty with your team; they need you to be steady. 

Not with the board—they need you to be confident. 
Not with peers—they're carrying their own weight.
So you hold it. And over time, that holding becomes the work.

This is the hidden cost: 
You're not just managing outcomes. 
You're managing everyone's emotional experience of the outcomes. 
And there's no container for yours.

Where does your uncertainty land?

Because if the answer is ‘nowhere,’ the load doesn’t disappear; it accumulates.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The leadership team met every Monday to address "urgent issues." 
Team conflicts. 
Slipping timelines. 
Escalating client concerns.

Six months in, they were exhausted. 
And the same issues kept recycling in different forms.

The problem wasn't the issues. 
It was that no one knew who actually owned decisions. 

So every decision became a negotiation. 
→ Every problem escalated. 
→ Every Monday, they firefought the same dysfunction in new packaging.

They were reacting to noise. 
And missing the pattern.

👉🏾 Not everything that feels urgent is actually unstable. 
Senior leaders exhaust themselves reacting because discernment requires staying with discomfort longer than reaction does.

👉🏾 The data backs this up.
68% of middle managers and 57% of C-suite leaders say most of their decision-making time is inefficient, spent rehashing issues instead of making high-stakes choices.

👉🏾 Urgency bias explains why. 
We reliably choose what feels urgent over what actually matters, even when it leads to worse outcomes.

It's automatic. 

→ The inbox fire pulls you in. 
→ The minor outage demands response. 
→ The loud problem gets attention.

While the quieter pattern, the one actually destabilizing the system, goes unaddressed.

Once the leadership team clarified decision rights, the "urgent issues" list shrank 70%. 
The work wasn't responding faster. 
The work was seeing what they'd been reacting around.

Pattern recognition is the capacity to stay with ambiguity long enough to see whether something is a real pattern or an isolated flare-up. 

❓It's asking: 
Is this unstable, or does it just feel uncomfortable? 
Is this a fire, or is this smoke from a fire I'm not looking at?

The leaders who exhaust themselves are often the most responsive ones.
→ They answer every message.
→ They jump on every issue.
→ They stay perpetually available.

But responsiveness without discernment is just exhaustion in motion.

Not every signal deserves response. 
Not every pressure requires containment. 
And treating all urgency as equal is how you miss the thing that actually matters.

❌ The question isn't "How do I respond to all of this?"
✅ The question is "What pattern am I missing while I'm reacting to this?"

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The board meeting was brutal.  Revenue miss.  Investor pressure mounting.

❌ The CEO walked into the leadership team meeting an hour later and transmitted all of it.

"We're in trouble. The board is furious. We need answers by Friday. Everything is on the table."

The room went silent.

Then it went into overdrive.
→ Teams scrambled. 
→ Projects paused mid-stream. 
→ People made decisions out of fear instead of strategy. 
→ Three key people updated their résumés that week.

💥 He thought he was being transparent. 
→ What he actually did was export panic. 
→ And it broke the team's ability to think.

👉🏾 Internal governance is knowing which pressure you must hold, and which you must not transmit. That distinction is what protects judgment during change.

Research shows this clearly.
→ When leaders fail to buffer harmful pressure, team stress spikes, error rates increase, and decisions turn defensive.
→ When leaders filter chaos while transmitting clarity and standards, teams maintain focus and decision quality, even under uncertainty.

✅ In the next board crisis, he held the panic. But he transmitted the standard:
"Revenue is down. We're addressing it. 

Here's what doesn't change: 
→ our product quality, 
→ our customer commitments, 
→ our decision process. 
Keep doing excellent work. I'll manage the board."

✓ Same pressure. 
✓ Different filter. 
✓ The team stayed steady.

👉🏾 Some pressure you must hold: board volatility, investor noise, shifting priorities that create whiplash, emotional load that would govern choices if transmitted unfiltered.

👉🏾 Some pressure you must transmit: the reality of change, performance standards, constraints that protect judgment, the expectation that people speak up.

Here's the diagnostic: 
→ "If I transmit this as-is, will it increase clarity and agency or only fear and confusion?"
→ If it's the latter, hold it. Translate it into something that helps people think, not panic.

Studies on psychological safety show that...
→ When leaders buffer unnecessary threat while transmitting clarity, teams take learning-oriented risks instead of defensive ones. 
→ When leaders transmit raw pressure without filtering, speaking up drops, errors spike, and teams become self-protective instead of strategic.

👉🏾 Internal governance isn't just what you carry. 
It's what you let through.

What pressure are you holding that you should be transmitting? 
And what are you transmitting that's breaking your team's ability to think?

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

You stopped jumping on every escalation. 
You stopped responding to every email immediately. 
You stopped filling every silence in meetings.

You're practicing restraint. 
You're reacting less.
And your team thinks you've checked out.

The hardest leadership skill during change isn't reacting better, it's reacting less. But restraint without governance looks like disengagement.

Research shows that in high-ambiguity environments, low visible activity reads as low care, unless you actively signal otherwise. 

👉🏾 When you practice restraint without context, 
people fill the silence with worst-case narratives.

You're choosing not to react. 
They're experiencing you as absent.

The distinction is intent:
✅ Strategic non-reaction: "I'm actively taking in data. I'm choosing not to move yet so we don't move badly."
❌ Withdrawal: "I don't want to deal with this. I'm checked out."

From the outside, they look identical. 
Both involve silence. 
Both create space.
But one stabilizes the system. The other destabilizes it.

Research shows leaders are experienced as disengaged...
→ when connection drops, 
→ when they’re hard to reach, 
→ don’t explain pauses, 
→ or go quiet without context. 

In that climate, even healthy restraint gets read as neglect, not containment.

Internal governance is what keeps restraint from being mistaken for disengagement.

Governed restraint requires visible structure, not more activity.
1️⃣ Name the pause: "We're not changing direction this week. We're mapping second-order impacts first."
2️⃣ Put time boundaries on it: "I'll come back Thursday with options." Research shows trust increases when leaders break silence as planned.
3️⃣ Maintain relational contact: Increase 1:1s and check-ins while you withhold the decision. People need to feel seen even without closure.
4️⃣ Show work-in-progress: "Here's what we're looking at this week and how we're thinking about tradeoffs." 
5️⃣ Makes the pause legible as strategy, not drift.

Without these signals, your restraint reads as absence. 
With them, it reads as discipline.

👉🏾 The shift isn't from restraint to reaction. It's from ungoverned restraint to governed restraint.

Where are you practicing restraint right now without governing how it’s perceived?

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

You're defending the AI roadmap to the CEO tomorrow. 
Your best engineer just went quiet. 
The reorg your team didn't ask for starts next month. 

And tonight, you're carrying all of it alone. 
This is the part no one talks about. 

You're not overwhelmed because the work is complex,
You've built systems under worse conditions. 

🚩 You're overwhelmed because you're holding the full weight of it privately. 

💥The budget pressure. 
💥 The skepticism from peers. 
💥 The team that's watching you for cues while you're still figuring out what comes next. 

Most VPs I work with absorb this silently. 
→ They manage up to execs who want speed. 
→ They manage down to teams who want certainty. 
→ They manage sideways to stakeholders who want promises. 

And they do it without acknowledging the toll because naming it feels like weakness. It's not. 

👉🏾 This is where internal governance comes in. 

Internal governance isn't a leadership buzzword. 
→ It's the structure that keeps pressure from leaking into your decisions, your tone, and your timing. 
→ It's what prevents you from reacting when you need to respond. 
→ It's the discipline that holds complexity, so you don't have to white-knuckle every call. 

👉🏾 Firms with stronger governance structures—independent boards, performance-linked accountability, systematic oversight—outperform on ROA and market value. 

Not because they're smarter, but because they've distributed the cognitive load. 

👉🏾 Governance works because it removes the burden of holding everything internally. The same principle applies to you. 

✅  When you build internal governance, you create: 
→ Decision frameworks so every choice doesn't feel existential 
→ Boundaries around what needs resolution now vs. what can wait 
→ Structured space to process pressure before it distorts judgment 
→ Permission to externalize complexity without losing authority 

✨ You already know how to lead under pressure. 

The question is: what systems are you using to hold it? 

Because isolation isn't strength. 
It's risk.

#LeadWithClarity #ChangeWithConfidence

Sunday night. You’re already carrying Monday, 

the decisions waiting, 
the pressure building, 
the questions you haven’t fully answered yet.

Here’s a different move:

Before Monday, identify one decision that is now closed.

Not just decided.
Closed.

No longer open for renegotiation.
No longer provisional.
No longer responsive to pressure.

Stability comes from knowing where the ground no longer moves.

Most senior leaders operate in environments where everything feels provisional. 

Every decision could be reopened. 
Every commitment renegotiated. 
Over time, that creates chronic instability.

When decisions are constantly revisited, execution stalls. 
→ People hedge effort. 
→ They delay commitment. 
→ They stop believing anything will hold long enough to matter.

Here’s what closed means:

Not “we’ve decided and might change our minds.”
But “we’ve decided and unless something material changes, this is no longer open.”

For example:

➡️ This org structure is closed until Q3.
➡️ These three priorities are funded. New requests wait.
➡️ This product line is sunset. We’re not reopening it.

👉🏾 When leaders clearly close decisions and behave consistently afterward, trust increases. 
→ People stop lobbying. 
→ Second-guessing drops. 
→ Energy moves back into execution.

Before Monday, choose one decision that is now closed.
Tell your team. 
Tell your board. 
Tell yourself.

Not because it’s perfect.
But because stability comes from knowing where the ground no longer moves.

And right now, your organization needs at least one thing to be final.

👉🏾 If this resonates, DM me “closed.” I’m working with leaders on creating stability without rigidity and learning to say this is no longer open without apology.

Sunday night. 

You're already carrying next week, the decision, the tension, the conversation no one else knows is weighing on you.

Before Monday: decide what you will hold and what you will stop absorbing.

Most leaders don’t burn out from leading. 
They burn out from absorbing everything that lands near them...
→ emotion that isn't theirs, 
→ doubt someone else should be managing, 
→ weight with no purpose except that it found you.

There's a difference between containment and absorption.

🌱 Containment is strategic. 
→ You hold tension so the system can function. 
→ You metabolize uncertainty so your team can move forward.

🚩 Absorption is uncontained leakage. 
→ You take on emotion because no one else will. 
→ You carry weight that serves nothing except the habit of carrying.

Most leaders don't distinguish between the two until they're already burned out.

Regulation isn't a wellness practice. 
It's an executive decision.

You decide what uncertainty enters your system. 
You decide which conversations drain you. 
You decide when you're containing for the organization and when you're just absorbing because it's easier than saying no.

What are you holding that actually serves the work? 
And what are you absorbing just because you can?

One strengthens the system. 
The other slowly drains it.

If you're rethinking what you're carrying, DM me "holding."

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

Your team is watching you for cues. 
The board wants certainty. 
Your peer just asked if you're "handling it."

You are. Publicly.

💥 At senior levels, no one absorbs uncertainty for you, but everyone absorbs it from you.

🚩 Your team doesn't just hear what you say in the all-hands. 
→ They watch the micro-pause before you answer the hard question. 
→ They notice when your tone shifts between the morning standup and the afternoon strategy call. 
→ They feel what you're carrying even when you don't name it.
→ And they make it mean something about themselves, their projects, the future.

This is the part no one talks about. 

👉🏾 You're not just leading the change—
→ You're metabolizing the uncertainty so the system doesn't fracture. 
→ You're making decisions without complete information while being evaluated weekly. 
→ You're holding steady while others find their footing.

The data confirms it: 
31% of CEOs are fired for poor change management. 
73% of executives report being overworked without rest. 

You already knew this. 
You're living it.

Here's the question most leaders carry alone:
What's holding you while you hold everyone else?

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

Month six of the transformation. 
Early wins are visible. 
The board exhales. 

Your team wants to know if they can slow down. 
And you're tempted to say yes. 

Most leaders don't fail change because of bad strategy. 
They fail it by deciding too early, trying to relieve pressure instead of holding it. 

Here's the moment: 
The reorg is done. 
The new systems are live. 
People are tired. 
You're tired. 
And declaring progress feels like leadership. 

So you do. 

You shift focus back to operations. 
You stop reinforcing the new behaviors. 
You treat "Day One" like the finish line. 
And the organization, still rewiring habits, still testing whether this is real—reads your retreat as permission to go back. 

60–70% of change initiatives fail. 
Not because the strategy was wrong. 

Because leaders couldn't hold the discomfort long enough for it to take root. 

Real transformation takes years. 

Culture doesn't shift because you announced it. 
It shifts when you stay present through the messy middle, 
when resistance peaks, 
when fatigue sets in, 
when everyone (including you) wants relief. 

The hardest move isn't launching the change. 
It's refusing to call it done when the pressure asks you to.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The acquisition was falling apart. Integration slipping. Key talent leaving. 

The executive team wanted the CEO to calm everyone down.
Instead, she told the truth.

"This is harder than we expected. We're behind. We've lost people we didn't want to lose. 

Here's what we know: 
our product is strong, 
our customers are staying, 
we're learning fast. 

Here's what we don't know yet: 
how long this takes to stabilize. 
But we're not pretending it's fine when it's not."

The room didn't relax. But people stopped looking for reassurance and started problem-solving.

👉🏾 Your role in change isn't to reassure people. 
It's to stay coherent when reassurance isn't possible. 

Presence is what remains when certainty is gone.

Research shows this pattern clearly.
Reassurance provides short-term relief, but increases anxiety and dependency over time.

❌ When leaders promise “things will be fine” and outcomes stay unclear, trust erodes.
✅ When leaders stay coherent, when what they see, say, and do align, they become a psychological anchor.

Studies show calm, contained leaders help regulate team anxiety and support better decision-making under stress. 

Coherence is alignment between message, demeanor, and action. 
Your tone, your decisions, your visible choices, 
they all tell the same story about what matters.

That CEO didn't sugarcoat the chaos. 

But every decision reinforced what she said mattered: product quality, customer retention, learning velocity. 

When budget got tight, she protected the product team. 
When timelines slipped, she doubled down on customer communication.

The team stabilized. 
Not because they felt reassured. 
Because they knew where they stood.

The signals of strategic presence aren’t emotional. 
They’re structural:
→ Communicate what is known, what is unknown, and what is being tested, not outcomes you can't promise.
→ Demonstrate values-based decision-making. Your choices reflect your stated priorities, even under pressure.
→ Say "Here's what we don't yet know, and here's how we'll learn" instead of filling gaps with false comfort.

👉🏾 Reassurance teaches people that safety comes from external answers. 
When those answers don't come, dependency turns into distrust.

👉🏾 Coherence teaches people that safety comes from alignment, from knowing that what you see, say, and do are the same thing.

Here's the diagnostic: 
1️⃣ In your last major change, could people repeat your core narrative in one sentence? 
2️⃣ Did your visible choices match your stated priorities? 
3️⃣ How often did you say "we don't know yet" instead of reassuring?

Presence isn't reassurance. It's coherence under pressure.
And coherence is what people trust when certainty is gone.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The executive team was aligned on paper.
Unified strategy. Clear priorities.

But in practice, each executive was optimizing for their own domain.

→ Sales pushed for speed—close deals faster, hit the quarter.
→ Operations demanded control—tighten processes, reduce risk.
→ Product wanted innovation—experiment, test, push boundaries.

Three different truths. All defensible. All in direct conflict.

The middle managers? Paralyzed.

They couldn’t move fast without breaking process.
They couldn’t innovate without risking the quarter.
So they stopped deciding and started escalating everything.

👉🏾 Most organizations don’t break under change.
They fracture under mixed signals.
And those signals almost always trace back to uncontained leadership stress.

Under pressure, executive teams reliably create the same system-level failures:
→ Conflicting signals about priorities and risk
→ Inconsistent decision rules that cascade downward
→ Constant re-prioritization that turns urgency into noise

👉🏾 The organization doesn’t fail because the strategy is wrong.
It fails because the signals governing action stop making sense under stress.

In this case, the fracture wasn’t about strategy.
It was about authority patterns, the recurring ways decisions were made and rewarded.
→ Sales optimized for revenue.
→ Operations optimized for stability.
→ Product optimized for differentiation.

Together, they created a system where the only safe move was no move.
Once they saw the pattern, they aligned on a single constraint:
“We will hit the quarter AND ship the new product AND maintain stability, but we will not add new projects until Q2.”

Not perfect.
But coherent.
The middle managers started moving again.

Here’s the diagnostic:
→ Map your last 3–5 high-stakes decisions.
→ Who set direction?
→ Where did messages change as they moved down?
→ Ask two levels below you: “What behavior looks safest and most rewarded here?”

That answer reveals your real authority pattern.
Alignment at the top doesn’t guarantee coherence in the system.

👉🏾 The work isn’t getting everyone to agree.
It’s ensuring the signals you send through decisions, incentives, and consequences—tell the same story when things get hard.

Because if your signals fracture under stress, so does your organization.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The meeting is going too long. 
Tension is rising. 
Two people are circling the same disagreement, and you can feel the discomfort in the room.

So you cut it off.

"Let's take this offline. We need to move on."

The room exhales. 
The meeting ends.
And the issue? 
Still there. Just quieter now.

👉🏾 What are you trying to resolve too quickly because it makes you uncomfortable? That impulse quietly reshapes organizations, often more than strategy ever will.

→ You didn't resolve the tension. 
→ You displaced it. 
→ You taught people that when things get uncomfortable, the move is to stop talking, not to push through.

And if you do that enough times, it becomes the culture.

Research shows that internal governance isn't just structures and policies, it's the unwritten norms about how disagreement, risk, and uncertainty are handled. 

👉🏾 When leaders consistently speed past discomfort, that becomes the real governance system, regardless of what the org chart says.

→ The pattern compounds. 
→ Conflict gets displaced. 
→ People stay quiet. 
→ Decisions move to hallways. 

💥 Teams optimize for keeping you comfortable, not for surfacing reality early enough to act.

👉🏾 Here's the reflective practice:
Recall one recent situation where you felt pressure to "just decide" or "move on."

❓Ask yourself:
→ What feeling was I trying to get away from? (Awkwardness, fear of conflict, fear of being wrong)
→ What did I do to reduce that feeling quickly? (Overruling, deflecting, postponing, sugarcoating)
→ If others copy that move, what kind of culture does it create in 6-12 months?

Your strategy says you value candor and truth-telling. 
But your discomfort management teaches people to be careful, to avoid tension, to wait for you to decide.

Culture follows the pattern you model, not the values you articulate.

👉🏾 If everyone handled discomfort the way you do in that moment, what would your culture look like a year from now?

The invitation isn't to confession.  It's to honest noticing.

What are you trying to resolve too quickly because it makes you uncomfortable?

That’s the question worth sitting with.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

You’re working late again. 
Not because the work requires it.

You’re answering emails that could wait. 
Refining a deck that’s already good enough. 
Reviewing work that your team can handle. 
Reorganizing priorities that won’t actually change anything.

And when you finally stop, you feel slightly better.
Not because something critical moved forward, but because 
you discharged some of the weight.

Most overwork at senior levels isn’t about workload. 
It’s about emotional regulation.

Research shows that overwork is often driven by anxiety reduction, not external demand. 

👉🏾 Workaholism functions as motion-as-relief, activity that creates a temporary sense of control while accelerating burnout. 
👉🏾 “Optimal busyness” feels energizing, even when it doesn’t meaningfully change outcomes.

You’re not working to create value. 
You’re working to discharge responsibility.

There’s a difference:

👉🏾 Productive work: Clear linkage between effort and outcome. Decisions made. Something shifts when you finish.
👉🏾 Motion-as-relief: High multitasking. Constant interruptions. Refining what’s already done. Activity that feels useful but erodes strategic capacity.

🚩 Multitasking alone can consume up to 40% of productive capacity. 
🚩 Visible responsiveness feels responsible, but it quietly degrades judgment and focus.

Productive work has a finish line. 
Motion-as-relief doesn’t.

When you stop, the weight is still there. 
You just feel slightly less anxious for having moved.
So you do it again the next night.

You’re not overworked because there’s too much to do. 
You’re overworked because holding responsibility without constant motion feels intolerable.

The weight of outcomes you can’t fully control. 
Decisions that won’t resolve cleanly. 
Accountability that sits heavy.
So you work, not to finish, but to discharge.

And every time you do, you reinforce the pattern: 
The only way to handle this weight is to stay busy.

👉🏾 Next time you catch yourself working late, ask: “Is this moving something forward or am I trying to feel better about what I’m carrying?”

👉🏾 If it’s the latter, stop. Sit with the weight.

That discomfort, holding responsibility without immediate action, that is the work.

Check out the REWIRED. newsletter (link in comments).

The pressure isn't resolving. 
The board wants results you can't deliver yet. 
The market is shifting faster than your strategy can adapt.

And you start compensating.

Not because it's needed. 
Because holding steady feels intolerable.

When pressure doesn't resolve, leaders start compensating. 
→ Over-communicating. 
→ Over-deciding. 
→ Over-functioning.

From the outside, it looks like leadership. 
From the inside, you know you're just creating motion.

👉🏾 Research shows compensation behaviors are stress responses, ways leaders create motion when steadiness feels intolerable. 

Short-term, they feel relieving, you're doing something. 
Long-term, they drain your reserves faster than the work itself ever could.

👉🏾 Studies on high-functioning burnout call this the "crash-out effect": sustained hyperactivation eventually leads to profound fatigue and cognitive fog. 

You look productive. 
You're running on fumes.
And the compensation? 

It's not fixing the pressure. 
It's creating the illusion of control.

Over-functioning is often rooted in survival strategies, where taking on extra responsibility became the way to stay safe in chaotic environments. 

That doesn't go away when you become a senior leader. It just gets more sophisticated.

→ You over-communicate because ambiguity feels dangerous. 
→ You over-decide because open loops feel like failure. 
→ You over-function because doing less feels like weakness.

If you’re working harder but not making progress,
If you’re exhausted but the pressure isn’t decreasing, 
you’re not leading. 

You’re compensating.
And the organization sees it. 

They don't see a leader holding complexity. 
They see someone who can't tolerate unresolved pressure.
So they start compensating too.

When you catch yourself sending the third follow-up in an hour, ask: 
"Is this needed, or am I just relieving discomfort?"

When you're about to decide just to close the loop, ask: 
"Is this decision ripe, or am I managing my own anxiety?"

The work isn't doing more. 
The work is learning to tolerate unresolved pressure without burning yourself out trying to fix it prematurely.

What pressure are you compensating around right now instead of actually holding?

I’ve founded several startups and am currently working on an AI-driven group purchasing e-commerce project, using optimization algorithms and data analysis. As an angel investor, I’ve backed several startups—some successful, some not. I’m also diving deep into fundraising and sharing my insights on my page. Great to connect!

Victor Sankin

Founders often feel that posting on LinkedIn isn’t a priority.

There’s a product to build.
A team to support.
Customers to serve and decisions to make every day.

Writing feels like something for later.
And yet, almost every founder still reads.
Saves posts.
Pauses on ideas that describe their own experience with surprising accuracy.

Very few actually start writing.

Not because they have nothing to say.

But because there’s always the same doubt:
“Is this really important?”

Yes more than it seems.

You don’t need to post a lot.

A few thoughtful posts a week are more than enough.

Consistency matters more than frequency.

Content should stop the scroll because of meaning, not noise.

Long-form posts or PDF carousels work better
because they give people time to think.

And the opening lines decide everything.

If no one clicks “see more,”
the idea simply wasn’t heard.

What works best is real experience.

Numbers you’ve lived through.

Mistakes made in practice.

Generic AI-written text is easy to spot.
And easy to ignore.

Posts with real thought behind them get revisited.

And they always last longer than short-term spikes.

For founders, posting isn’t about personal branding.
It’s a way to clarify your own thinking.

When you share what you’ve actually lived through
mistakes, lessons, doubts
people can feel it immediately.

Investors read those posts.

Other founders recognize themselves.

You don’t need to write perfectly.

You just need to write honestly and clearly.

Today, the opportunity on

 LinkedIn isn’t to post more.
It’s to speak with intention.
And with value.

Angel Investor | Help founders find their perfect investors | CEO and Founder of @USE4COINS and @Abbigli

LinkedIn-Feels-Like-a-Low-Priority-It-Isnt

Amazon is starting another round of layoffs on January 26, cutting up to 30,000 employees, after 14,000 cuts in 2025.

Even the best jobs are still a lease. And the lease can end without your consent.

When you choose to become a founder, you turn your life into an asset. Not a resume that gets reset every time you change companies.

A founder has three rare advantages.

First the right to make decisions. I

n a job, you execute someone else’s taste. A founder turns their own taste into the product, the hiring, the pricing, and the culture. You’re not waiting to be picked. You’re building your own game.

Second the speed of learning. 

In big companies, feedback is delayed and filtered. In a startup, reality hits fast: churn, cash running out, hiring that doesn’t work, competitors shipping. It hurts, but it’s honest. The market becomes your teacher.

Third trust. 

A strong founder brand isn’t marketing. It’s reducing doubt. People join your team faster, invest faster, and partner faster when you feel coherent and real. That’s why VCs say the team matters more than the idea. They’re betting on your ability to adapt when the plan breaks.

A startup isn’t one business. One product might fail, but the assets remain: distribution, relationships, data, a network of strong people, and a reputation for shipping.

The founder’s job is simple.

 Reduce uncertainty every week.

In the pitch show adoption and growth, not dreams. 

In the company pick a North Star metric. 

In yourself train calm, because volatility is the default setting.

Yes, the hours are real. The stress is real.

But the upside is real too. It’s the upside most employees almost never get to touch.

Founder-Advantage-in-an-Unstable-Economy

I will say this as someone who has seen deals like this many times.
And I will say it in defense of investors.

If you invested in startups, put real money in, and still have not received a single cent back, that is not stupidity.
It is a normal experience.

Most investors lose money not because founders openly lie, but because deception looks reasonable and professional.

The founder speaks calmly and confidently.
He does not pressure you or rush you.
He does not promise instant millions or miracles.

Everything seems properly put together.
You do not feel the risk.
You only feel like there is a well thought out plan.

Someone reputable invested before you.
A fund with a name.
An angel with a reputation.

And that lowers your guard more than any numbers ever could.
That is where the risk appears.

So called dangerous startups look convincing and well organized.
For every question, they have a persuasive answer.
For every weak metric, a nice interpretation.
For every risk, a promise that they will close it.

But as an investor, you have to see the signals.

If you cannot see the product working live, it most likely does not exist.
If every conversation goes only through the founder, the information is being filtered and you are not being introduced to the team.
If they keep explaining the numbers but never showing them, that is defense, not transparency.

If after the conversation you feel calm and safe instead of clear, you should stop and not invest.

Safety in venture is one of the most expensive illusions.

Next time, watch the conversation itself.
When everything sounds too smooth, reasonable, and comfortable, that is very often where the lost money is.

Sometimes marketing works not because it’s “right,” but because it happened to be close to an anomaly at the right moment.

The story is simple.

Donald Trump posts something that gets massive attention.
In the frame: Nicolás Maduro wearing a Nike tracksuit.
Nothing special about it. Not a new drop. Just a long-tail item with no real hype.

Within a day, that exact model gets cleared out.

There’s no meaningful connection between Trump and Nike.
No campaign.
No plan.
Just attention created by the collision of context and scale.

For founders and marketers, that’s an uncomfortable but useful lesson.

Once traffic gets big enough, you lose the ability to think about “the audience” as something coherent and controllable through personas and neat motivations, not because you’re being lazy, but because that logic stops fitting the reality of scale.

At that level, the audience isn’t a segment.
It’s a stream of reactions, where different triggers briefly converge into a single moment of attention.

And that changes how you think.

Relevance to the product becomes secondary, and a more practical question takes over: what caused the spike, and can you capture it, amplify it, or at least avoid missing it.

That’s how big creators operate.
That’s how platforms behave.
And that’s how the attention market works, whether we like it or not.

At scale, the winner isn’t the one who explains everything perfectly.
It’s the one who notices the anomaly and moves while the attention is still there.

Marketing-Lessons-from-Attention-Anomalies

Not everything that shines is AI.

People aren’t tired of AI as a tool.
They’re tired of the feeling that what they see isn’t real.

When something looks too perfect, it stops being convincing.
It starts raising questions.

You can see this shift clearly in beauty. Merit Beauty has been moving away from visuals that used to “sell.”
Instead of spotless setups, they post messy sink shots, scuffed cases, used-up tubes, and real signs of everyday use.

It’s a simple message: real people use this product, not an algorithm.

From a capital perspective, the logic is straightforward.
AI has made polished advertising cheap, which means it’s no longer a reliable signal of quality.
When perfection becomes available to everyone, it stops separating strong brands from weak ones.

So the focus shifts
from aesthetics to proof.

According to The Business of Fashion, 81% of marketing leaders in 2025 believe consumers are willing to pay more for human-made content, not AI-generated work.

For investors, that’s a capital signal: value is moving toward what can’t be generated, the trace of a real human.

In a world where almost anything can be faked, the advantage isn’t perfection.
It’s believability.

The market rarely punishes imperfection.
But it almost always punishes the feeling of manipulation.

If you look closely at the fastest-growing professions in 2026, they share a simple common thread.
They’re all about the same thing: turning complexity into clear, tangible results.

The first group includes people who make AI genuinely useful.
Not just engineers.
These are professionals who turn models into real working processes.
AI engineers, AI strategists, data annotation specialists.
Different levels, one expectation: technology should work in practice, not just look good in presentations.

The second group consists of professions close to money.
Sales, advertising sales, medical billing.
They’re growing not because they’re fashionable, but because they directly affect revenue and losses.

The third group is independent professionals.
Founders, consultants, advisors, venture partners.
People for whom control over decisions, pace, and income truly matters.

Value today is created by reducing uncertainty and turning complexity into something that actually works.
Those who operate between complexity and practice remain in demand.

I noticed something odd.

Startups rarely die because the idea was bad.
More often, they die because of the founder’s mindset.

And it’s not beginners who make the mistake.
It’s smart, experienced, principled people.
The kind who are used to being right, instead of checking whether the market agrees.

Here’s the difference, in my view, between an entrepreneur and a “smart professional.”

First. Growth matters more than stability.
Big revenue without growth doesn’t prove much.
It can be momentum, a lucky moment, or a decision that worked in the past.
If you’re not growing for months, the problem usually isn’t the market.
It’s how the market sees your product and why it should care today.

Y Combinator says it simply:
not “Are we good?” but “Are we growing?”

Second. Audience comes before product.
Most businesses first build a steady way to reach their audience,
and only then decide what to sell to them.
Attention is an asset.
A product is how you turn that asset into results.

Airbnb didn’t start by polishing the platform.
They took photos themselves and went where demand already existed.
That wasn’t product work.
That was distribution.

Third. Growth usually stalls because of hidden constraints, not lack of effort.
Weak teams add hours and headcount.
Strong teams look for what’s blocking growth:
a fuzzy offer, the wrong segment, bad onboarding, the wrong metric.
Removing one bottleneck can beat months of grinding.

Fourth. Tests matter more than plans.
You can’t know in advance what will work.
So you run many quick experiments with clear feedback.
When something gets strong traction, everything else drops in priority.

An entrepreneur isn’t the person who thought it all through.
It’s the person who cuts what doesn’t matter
and doubles down on what clearly works.

Images sourced from public startup infographics shared on Pinterest.

Most-startups-dont-fail-from-bad-ideas

When a founder starts a company, they usually cannot value it honestly.

Early on, the company does not have the one thing a valuation needs: a price. No stable revenue. No growth history. No clear benchmarks to compare against.

Any valuation at that stage is a guess. Both the founder and the investor know that, but they look at the future differently.

The founder sees potential. The investor sees risk.

That is why arguing about valuation early is usually pointless. To the investor it looks too high. To the founder it feels too low and painful.

That is where a SAFE shows up.

A SAFE is a compromise between two sides that cannot agree on a price today. The idea is simple. Do not lock in a valuation now. Delay that conversation until there is a market and real metrics.

The founder gets money now. The investor gets the right to a stake later.

But it is important to understand what you are delaying.

A SAFE is not easy money.

When there is no price yet, a SAFE feels convenient. You take the money now and push the hard questions to later.

No shares. No percentages on the cap table (cap table means who owns what). No feeling that you gave anything away.

That is why a SAFE looks safe at seed. And that is why it becomes dangerous later.

When Series A starts or an acquisition conversation begins, many founders see the real picture for the first time.

Step 1. A post-money SAFE locks in ownership, not dollars

A founder thinks like this. 300k at a 3M cap is about 10 percent. Then one more SAFE, so maybe 20 percent total.

In practice it does not work like that. Each post-money SAFE locks in its own stake in advance. The cap is the maximum valuation used to calculate the investor's conversion into shares.

Those stakes do not dilute each other. They mainly dilute the founder and the team.

So at Series A, founders often discover that 25 to 35 percent of the company was already promised before a priced investor ever showed up.

It is not a mistake and it is not a trick. It is a direct result of how the instrument works.

Step 2. Pre-money vs post-money is about who pays for dilution

With a pre-money SAFE, dilution is shared across everyone, including earlier SAFE investors. With a post-money SAFE, dilution falls on common stock, because the investor's stake is already fixed.

The cap and the check can look the same. The outcome for the founder can be very different.

Because a SAFE does not show ownership. It does not show control. It does not show the losses.

But the economics do not disappear. They just wait for the moment when you can no longer ignore them.

A SAFE is not dangerous right away. It is dangerous when it is already too late to fix.

I’ve been thinking about Anastasia Fedko’s Golden Globes moment.

It’s a really telling pattern.

This case isn’t about going viral.
It’s about how the market starts believing in you before it even pays attention to your content.

Her team built a simple chain of credibility signals.

Here’s what happened:

a girl from a small town in Russia shows up inside awards season

her presence gets documented in Getty Images

the official Golden Globes account posts about her

and there are photos editors can use immediately, without back and forth


After that, perception shifts on its own.

The question "Who is she?" just disappears.

It gets replaced with:
"She must be in the industry."

I call this a Credibility Cascade.

When legitimacy comes first, reach follows.
And virality becomes a side effect.

Why it works:

People don’t do deep fact checking.
They read familiar patterns.

And the pattern is simple:
Getty + an official account + a major event = she’s one of us.

This isn’t only useful for influencers.
It matters for founders and operators too.

If you’re building a personal brand, a startup, or a business,
your job isn’t to make more content.

Your job is to remove doubt.

Content can amplify trust.
But trust usually starts in the context around you, not in the post itself.

How-Credibility-Forms-Before-Content

Release is step zero.
A real business starts when people come back, pay, and stick around.

Over the last few months, the App Store has seen a spike in releases. Building got so cheap because of vibe coding that year over year launches jumped a lot.

What does that mean in practice?

More releases do not mean more demand. In 2025 the App Store is hitting a peak in new launches, but revenue is not growing nearly as fast.

You can ship a product fast. Keeping it alive is the hard part.

Competition is tighter. Simple copies of your idea can show up in days, not months.
This is not an innovation boom. It is a fight for limited attention.

Reach and traffic are the real currency now. Shipping is just the entry ticket.
User acquisition is getting more expensive, and attention spans are getting shorter.

Monetization is not installs. Installs still matter, but the money is decided by something else:
retention, user lifetime, refunds, and subscription cancellations.

Technology lowered the barrier to entry. Competition raised the bar for winning.

When-Launches-Stop-Meaning-Growth

When 25-35 year olds who can afford new still start with resale (people re selling items to each other, often through marketplaces), that is no longer a niche thing. It is the new normal.

I see it as a clear signal for startups building products for millennials.

This audience buys differently.

New is not automatically valuable anymore.

Value is faster, cheaper, and without the feeling you just got nicely overcharged.

That is why resale wins. Not because it has more inventory.

It wins because it removes the extra layers. Repackaging, markups, and a brand story used instead of real utility.

If your startup sells to 25-35 year olds, check one thing that really matters.

Does your product have a life after the first transaction.

This generation thinks in resale, swaps, and getting some value back.

If that does not exist, your product feels like a dead end.

Resale is not competing with brands.

It is challenging the whole idea that new automatically deserves a premium.

And startups that get this will not just build DTC.

They will build infrastructure for a new kind of consumer behavior

Why-Resale-Became-the-New-Normal

There’s a billionaire who personally reads cold emails and sometimes invests because of them.

That’s Mark Cuban. But here’s the point: he doesn’t read emails. He decides whether to open them or not.

You don’t have an email. You have three seconds.

Subject line. Preview text. First line.

Everything else exists only if you pass that filter.

The most common rookie mistake is trying to be likable "Exciting opportunity.” “Hope you are doing well.” “Would love to introduce.”

For someone getting hundreds of emails a day, that’s not politeness. It’s noise.

He opens emails that are easy to understand fast and easy to find later.

So your message needs the company name, the stage, and one credibility anchor.

No hype. No long intro. No “can we hop on a call?”

If he can’t scan it in 20 seconds, he won’t read it. And if the first lines don’t contain verifiable facts—real numbers and specifics (revenue, growth, customers, launch, who’s already invested) there’s no trust.

Then comes the second mistake, even more expensive: a big ask.

A call. A calendar invite. “30 minutes to discuss.”

To an investor, that’s not an opportunity. That’s a risk of wasted time.

A reply matters more than a call. A reply is already an investment of attention.

The structure that works can feel almost blunt: say it’s a cold email, give one strong trust signal, explain what you do in plain English, show adoption with numbers, then ask one small yes/no question.

Not “let’s schedule a call,” but “does it make sense to send details?”

That’s how you get past the first filter.

And the last mistake the just following up follow up. Without new facts, it reads like “reminding you I exist.” With new facts, it’s a real update because reality changed.

A new customer. Growth. A launch. A new investor.

In the end, a cold email isn’t begging for attention. It’s a test of how you think.

If you can compress meaning and write in facts, there’s a chance it gets opened. Sometimes it gets a reply. And sometimes it gets an investment.

That’s how someone thinks when they get hundreds of emails a day.

taplio

The Battle

Allison Allen

Victor Sankin

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAllison Allen's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreVictor Sankin's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Allison Allen

Victor Sankin

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Allison Allen's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreVictor Sankin's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAllison Allen's LinkedIn Performance